The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.

Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?

Some should ask Mr. Griffin what the USAF to give up in return for megawatt level BMD laser battle stations (and such a scheme would require multiple orbits of those multibillion dollar battle stations).

Sounds like the beginning of the plot to one of Seagal's Under Siege films, or an Austin Powers movie.

Don't get me wrong, space/tanker lasers would be awesome to have, but they would probably induce collateral expenditure elsewhere, including a revival of the nuclear arms race. That being said, if our adversaries are pursuing these technologies, what choice do we have?

Last edited by Ironduke; 21 Apr 18, at 00:51.

What I don't want to see is the Bills winning a Super Bowl. As long as I'm alive that doesn't happen.

Sounds like the beginning of the plot to one of Seagal's Under Siege films, or an Austin Powers movie.

Don't get me wrong, space/tanker lasers would be awesome to have, but they would probably induce collateral expenditure elsewhere, including a revival of the nuclear arms race. That being said, if our adversaries are pursuing these technologies, what choice do we have?

I'll believe it when I see it.

A megawatt laser will probably require something the size of the Polyus, that 80 ton battlestation (sure, current tech could probably shrink the laser's physical size, but I think they might want something in the multi-megawatt range if missile defense is the way to go).

A superheavy battle station will probably have acquisition costs coming close to that of a carrier (especially if you want people onboard and don't quite trust datalink enabled automation).

Secretary Mattis and Chairman Dunford held a press conference today. With regards to the 'Space Force', I got the impression they were standing up US Space Command as a functional unified combatant command (which makes total sense), but they did not elaborate on the creation of a separate military branch (which IMO isn't required at this time).

Secretary Mattis and Chairman Dunford held a press conference today. With regards to the 'Space Force', I got the impression they were standing up US Space Command as a functional unified combatant command (which makes total sense), but they did not elaborate on the creation of a separate military branch (which IMO isn't required at this time).

Indeed; setting up a new branch is probably not going to be good for keeping various space related programs on the projected timelines.